User:Ckambd/sandbox

Article Evaluation: Phycoerythrin

 * Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?
 * Yes, everything in the article is relevant to the topic
 * Is the article neutral? Are there any claims, or frames, that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?
 * The article seems neutral, the caims are presented in a factual manner instead of biased in opinion
 * Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?
 * No
 * Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?
 * Yes, the source supports the claims in the article.
 * Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?
 * Most of the facts are represented with appropriate, reliable reference through published articles. The sources seem to be neutral. Some facts do need to include furtehr citations.
 * Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?
 * No, the information seem to be up to date as well as the references used contain pretty recently published articles
 * Check out the Talk page of the article. What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?
 * There isn't any active conversation in the Talk page. It only notes an external link modification that occurred for the article
 * How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?
 * It is a part of WikiProject for Algae and Molecular and Cellular Biology
 * How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?
 * The Wikipedia discusses the topic in a more biological manner instead of focusing with its basterial applications (what is discussed in class)

Discussion: What's a "content gap"?

 * Wikipedians often talk about "content gaps." What do you think a content gap is, and what are some possible ways to identify them?
 * I think content gaps refer to sections that are not well explained or need further unbiased reliable sources taht need to be modified in order for the information to become significant and tie in the whole article
 * What are some reasons a content gap might arise? What are some ways to remedy them?
 * Content gap might arise if the expertise within the section is scarce and tehrefore is not able to be exmplained/ellaborated in a proper or factual manner.
 * Does it matter who writes Wikipedia?
 * I think it does because it provides the assurance of reliability, if a a person with no knowledge of a particular article decides to modify it according to own beliefs then reliability and accuracy of the article may decrease.
 * What does it mean to be "unbiased" on Wikipedia? How is that different, or similar, to your own definition of "bias"?
 * To be "unbiased" in Wikipedia may mean being able to provide multiple reliable soucres and allow for discussion/ ellaboration to not be influenced by opinion but instead factual sources. It is similar to my definition of bias because it allows for an objective point of view instead of personal

Discussion: Thinking about sources and plagiarism

 * Blog posts and press releases are considered poor sources of reliable information. Why?
 * These sources can be heavily influenced by personal opinion of writer and not have to include factual sources and tehrefore can be deemed poor sources of reliable information
 * What are some reasons you might not want to use a company's website as the main source of information about that company?
 * Company websites contain the personal agenda of making sure their products/information they provide work towards their benefits and therefore using it a a source of information may cause for a "biased" opinion leaning towards the benefits of product or towards the non-benefits of products against the company.
 * What is the difference between a copyright violation and plagiarism?
 * Copyright violation - usage of data that is not approved to be used for such methodology by copyright owners
 * Plagiarism - copying of data and claiming as owner of data
 * What are some good techniques to avoid close paraphrasing and plagiarism?
 * Take out the key information and structure the sentence to a conversational manner and tehn improving the sentence to be as informative as needed be. Asking for a third party to review the sentence/phrase and critique to review.

Group 10 --> In Class Article: bacterioplankton counting methods
My contribution to the article:

Bacterioplankton counting is the estimation of the abundance of bacterioplankton in a specific body of water, which is useful information to marine microbiologists. Various counting methodologies have been developed over the years to determine the number present in the water being observed. Methods used for counting bacterioplankton include epifluorescence microscopy, flow cytometry, measures of productivity through frequency of dividing cells (FDC), thymine incorporation, and leucine incorporation.

Factors such as salinity, temperature, latitude, various nutrient levels, water movement and the presence of other organisms can affect bacterioplankton enumeration. Changes in these factors affect the bacterioplankton count, causing it to vary by body of water, location, distance from shore and season.

Bacterioplankton count is usually expressed in cells per ml (cells ml−1).

Uses:
In understanding marine microbiology and the aquatic ecosystem, bacterioplankton counts can be useful. Observation of bacterioplankton number can provide more information in the following:


 * Processes involved in various nutrient cycling in the aquatic systems
 * For aquatic productivity
 * For determining environmental changes, especially extremes
 * Variation in bacterioplankton count not derived by seasonal adjustments can provide correlation with environmental stresses such as having a significant shift in nutrient levels within a body of water
 * Nutrient composition in aquatic ecosystem
 * Abundance and conditions of other aquatic organisms (i.e. shrimp)

*** PROPERLY CITED in WIKIPEDIA ARTICLE page

Revisions made to section:
- Reorganized the introduction to inclusde an introduction of the methods of counting

- Expanded on "For determining environmental changes..." in Uses (subheading)

- added more reliable sources - published articles

Peer Review: Sea ice microbial communities
Peer Review - Your Wikipedia article has a lot of sections and details which is great. Although, it would be very helpful to have a summary of why each section is included in the article. Would it work better if the fcus is more towards the mocrobial community from the beginning. As well, layering the headings (adding subheadings may help with the flow). The article has great sources and I see that research has been done thoroughly, so I think just focusing the article more towards its effects/roles in Microbial community (which is at the bottom of your section -- maybe putting it in top onstead?) instead of the definitions would help. Overall, I find the information already on the sandbox helpful and hopefully more gets added to it based on the notes. Ckambd (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Discussion: Thinking about Wikipedia

 * What do you think of Wikipedia's definition of "neutrality"?
 * What are the impacts and limits of Wikipedia as a source of information?
 * On Wikipedia, all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. What kinds of sources does this exclude? Can you think of any problems that might create?
 * If Wikipedia was written 100 years ago, how might its content (and contributors) be different? What about 100 years from now?